It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: North Korea Claims Deterrent Against US Nuclear Attack

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
On Sunday, the North Korean government answered updates to a U.S. document revision that includes the use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike by saying they have their own powerful "deterrent" to such a move. The communist nation did not provide specifics but commentary in its official newspaper hinted at nuclear weapons by stating that the U.S. no longer has a monopoly in that area.
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea warned Sunday it had a powerful "deterrent" against a U.S. nuclear attack, criticizing moves in Washington to authorize pre-emptive use of atomic weapons against states or terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction.

The communist nation's government did not elaborate on the deterrent, but a commentary in North Korea's official Minju Joson newspaper said that "nuclear weapons are no longer the monopoly of the U.S."

"The army and people of (North Korea) are proud of having built such a self-defensive deterrent, strong enough to protect the national dignity and security from the U.S. nuclear threat," said the commentary carried by North's Korean Central News Agency.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Not surprisingly, North Korea's answer is tit for tat only this ping pong game could be at the expense of millions of lives. Another summit is scheduled for November and I really doubt anything will be accomplished then either unfortunately. In fact, I can see the North Koreans using the information from the U.S. document as a way to further substantiate plans for their nuclear program. I mean what better way to say you can't do away with something than to point out that you're afraid you might be attacked first and then not be in a position to respond without your own arsenal.

I grew up in the 70's and 80's and can remember all too well the underlying fear that one day there would be a nuclear attack in the U.S. I'll never forget watching the TV movie about such an event with Jason Robards called "The Day After" which spooked me to no end. Eventually, I started feeling like the countries of the world were too smart, or at least too scared, to use such weapons anymore, including the U.S. and I began to relax. I'm far from relaxed now though and am feeling a bit like that scared little kid again, only this time, instead of me, I'm afraid its my children who may not have a chance to grow up. How sad.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
US develops strategy for first use of WMD against WMD
The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack




posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I remember that movie The Day After. It scared me very much as a kid.

I can't say that I blame North Korea for wanting to have the same weapons that we do. I'm not sure where the US got the idea that our country is the only one entitled to weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I feel that these weapons should be banned all together, but allowing only one country to have them isn't the answer either. I think the US has become a terrible bully and more countries are going to take this stand in the future. Scary stuff for sure.


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
It is indeed unfortunate that we were barely able to go a decade without the looming threat of nuclear destruction.

Damn humans.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry too much, NK's arsenal does not compare at all with the Soviet arsenal the US faced in the Cold War. It's enough to discourage the US from attacking, yes. It's not enough to make for a "Day After" type scenario.

The US is not likely to attack NK anyway, there's no oil there, or anything worth the trouble, really. And NK is unlikely to attempt a first strike against the US, it would be an entirely suicidal move.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Arsenal size makes no difference...Even if NK has only one nuke that is still a "Day After" scenerio for one U.S. city.Not sure about you but I sure wouldn't want it to be my city.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Neither would I, but I wouldn't worry about it because it's not likely to happen.

The US is not going to attack NK because it has nothing to gain by doing so.

NK is not going to attack the US because they have, quite literally, everything to lose by doing so.

And if I did have a nuke dropped near me, I'd rather it was one 20kt North Korean kludged fission bomb than some Russian 1.5MT monster fusion bomb. Or rather a half-dozen of them (considering I live near NYC the likely Cold-War gone hot scenario, I'm sure NYC rated a full MIRV package by itself).

[edit on 9/26/05 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Miyagawa Jun of Rainbow trading company said that North Korea has between 4 and 10billion barralls of oil, which they just recently found actually...



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Exactly 20 kt or 1.5MT dead is dead and lets face it. The West Coast is byfar the more likely target here.

This is why the BMD shield at Vandenberg adn Ft. Greely is essential. its not gonna stop Russia or even China in an all out attack, But if KuKu Kim launches his bird at us, even a ten percent chance is better than sitting around waiting for the sky to fall.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Gwan (June 2005) said his country was able to mount nuclear warheads on its missiles, and I presume that's what they're hinting at.

China controls 30 percent of the food and 70+ percent of the fuel going into North Korea, so you can bet Beijing is behind all this too.

North Korea Special Weapons Guide
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I think if NK were to fire only 1 nuke at this country it would not make it. Lets say defensive forces in South Korea dont stop it, then you still have other ones off of Japan, finally it has many islands in the vast pacific to launch from to try and down it, afterwards if the one and only missle actually made it past Hawaii, it still has a few minutes to get to the west coast where there are probably so many projectlies being shot at the thing it would fall in the water, and the U.S. adds another nuke to its arsenal. Followed by a massive tank column that would overrun the DMV and airstrikes from a coalition of South Korean, Japanese and U.S. warplanes.
China will get involved, but is unknown to what degree seeing as Nk instigated the attack using WMD and the response would be with a conventional invasion. At least the Korean peninsula would be reunited afterwards



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   


This is why the BMD shield at Vandenberg adn Ft. Greely is essential.


It would have to work well enough to actually leave the launch pad first in event of an attack, let alone a scheduled test.
Something that's poven to be a challenge so far.

And 1.5MT means a lot more people dead than 20kt.
Go here and see the difference for yourself. Sure if you're right at ground zero, you're dead either way, but chances are, you won't be.

The threat of North Korean or terrorist nukes is nothing compared to what we would have faced in case of a war with the Soviets. And yet, we didn't resort to "preemptive" strikes back then. A good thing too, as we're still here to discuss it.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Presumptions that the DPRK can't launch from subs or ships doesn't make for a sane battleplan. They have plenty of missile frigates and diesel electric subs.

That and nuking N. Korea is not an option unless you want to spread fallout on China and risk retaliation. Low yield nukes still spread fallout.

Best hope this is all smoke and mirrors.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
If North Korea were to nuke America it would not aim at a city.

They would instead aim at the sky.

The HEMP [High-altitude ElectroMagnetic Pulse] bomb is the most effective use of a limited number of nukes in an attack against America.

With a small number they could send us back to the stone age.

www.fas.org...

[edit on 26-9-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If North Korea were to nuke America it would not aim at a city.

They would instead aim at the sky.

The HEMP [High-altitude ElectroMagnetic Pulse] bomb is the most effective use of a limited number of nukes in an attack against America.

With a small number they could send us back to the stone age.

www.fas.org...

[edit on 26-9-2005 by ArchAngel]


Thank you! It is surprising how many people do not know this little fact. Our own millitary even came out and said that this is how any country could take us out.

It would only take one. Iran happens to have the the other half of the needed equation. They could launch it from any where in the ocean that is somewhat close to us and we are back in the 1800's people. Only not too many people know how to live with out electricity any more.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by mrsdudara]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
First Question: I mean this in a very respectful tone, but does it ever dawn on anyone in America that maybe if you're international policies weren't so hostile. It is alot easier to sleep at night when you know you haven't screwed your neighbour. Just thinking outloud, but maybe, just maybe, if America and her bastard children(meglomamouth corperations) would stop enforcer their way of life on every place they can get a politician take a bribe, their might be less reason to take a shot at you, who are essentially merely the easiest targets of this war. Being abused on both sides and all.

Second Question: Can anyone tell me one single reason we need Nukes now anyway? It seems to me we could get ride of all of them, and still have theri specture hanging around us, knowing(or probably more like thinkings, or fearing) our enemeies may still be able to make one or have one lying around. It just seems that most countries have them because another country has them. Iran wants it because of Isreal,. The USSR had them because the US had them. India needed them because Pakistan had them. ...... it is just silly. Is there any reason why someone wouldn't want their country to get rid of their nukes?

Just asking..



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

It would only take one. Iran happens to have the the other half of the needed equation. They could launch it from any where in the ocean that is somewhat close to us and we are back in the 1800's people. Only not too many people know how to live with out electricity any more.


A single HEMP bomb that could cover all of America would need to be in the multi-megaton range, and would destroy almost all of the LEO satellites in the process.

NK's nukes are much smaller, and would need to spread a pattern, or simply center over the major population centers at a much lower altitude protecting the satellites.

Without electricity for even a short time America would fall apart.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Presumptions that the DPRK can't launch from subs or ships doesn't make for a sane battleplan. They have plenty of missile frigates and diesel electric subs.

That and nuking N. Korea is not an option unless you want to spread fallout on China and risk retaliation. Low yield nukes still spread fallout.

Best hope this is all smoke and mirrors.



NK has a total of THREE rather poor light frigates comprising their entire blue water fleet that each can carry only a few short range missiles.

www.hazegray.org...

They will not be able to get in range of an American city without being sunk long before.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The US never really had a monopoly in nuclear weapons for that long. Russia made their own pretty quick and ended any monopoly the US had.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystWolf
.........................
I can't say that I blame North Korea for wanting to have the same weapons that we do. I'm not sure where the US got the idea that our country is the only one entitled to weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I feel that these weapons should be banned all together, but allowing only one country to have them isn't the answer either. I think the US has become a terrible bully and more countries are going to take this stand in the future. Scary stuff for sure.


The US is not the only country with nuclear weapons, but the npt was signed so that noone else would get their hands in nuclear weapons. i guess that doesn't work when you have countries like France, Russia, China, etc, selling nukes to other countries.

Despite what some people have claimed around these forums, and somehow keep forgetting and claim the same thing 2 months down the road, France was the country that we have to thank for selling nukes to Israel, and even helping Saddam start his own nuclear/wmd program, with a lot of help from the Russians.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Despite what the Mass Media may have told you North Korea was not the one that broke the Agreed Framework.

James Kelly said that they admitted to having a Uranium enrichment program, but that is not what they said.

North Korea said it was entitled to an enrichment program, but was willing to forego it for security guarantees.

www.larouchepub.com...

Up until that point NK was in complete compliance with the AF.

Under the AF we were supposed to supply NK with two light water nuclear reactors that were supposed to already be finished.


www.kedo.org...
Both sides will cooperate to replace the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities with light-water
reactor (LWR) power plants.

1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003.

-- The U.S. will organize under its leadership an international consortium to finance and supply the LWR project to
be provided to the DPRK. The U.S., representing the international consortium, will serve as the principal point of
contact with the DPRK for the LWR project.

-- The U.S., representing the consortium, will make best efforts to secure the conclusion of a supply contract with the DPRK within six months of the date of this Document for the provision of the LWR project. Contract talks will begin as soon as possible after the date of this Document.

-- As necessary, the U.S. and the DPRK will conclude a bilateral agreement for cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.


AMERICA broke the AF when we suspended compensating oil shipments.


2) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S., representing the consortium, will make arrangements to offset the energy foregone due to the freeze of the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities, pending completion of the first LWR unit.

-- Alternative energy will be provided in the form of heavy oil for heating and electricity production.

-- Deliveries of heavy oil will begin within three months of the date of this Document and will reach a rate of 500,000 tons annually, in accordance with an agreed schedule of deliveries.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join